Technology, the future and abuse

[coax]

I think we've been somewhat fooled into thinking of technology and science as "one thing", and that this "one thing" approach enables an attitude of most technology is good, even though it's a "double edged sword". The double-edged sword analogy is really dumb I feel. It's a double edged sword yes, but it's a NEW sword. basically you're throwing NEW swords in the mix. More ways to get cut than existed before.

 

When I read about AI, nanotechnology, biotechnology and even virtual reality, I can't help but wonder how incredibly dangerous all of these things are. VR is ripe for abuse. You can drug someone, deprive them of sleep, and run them through many scary scenarios that their brains won't be capable of rationally thinking about. With neuroscience in the future, you may even be able to suppress their memories or insights about being in a simulation, perpetually disabling them from thinking critically. There's any number of ways one can abuse nanotechnology, both on single individuals in some prison or whatever, but also on mass groups of people. You can conceive of nanobot swarms, invading a city like a virus and gradually changing peoples brains directly. Or advanced neuroscience being used in advertising or other media, in a personalized way, to convince individuals, tailored to their specific "neuroprofile", of a certain idea. AI is obviously immensely dangerous, both in terms of abuse by elites, but also just a threat to humanity itself as a foreign alien force out of our control. If any of these technologies ever fulfill the dreams of people we hear from like ray kurzweil, michio kaku, whoever else, it is just so crazy.

 

These technologies are not just generic "technology" with some good sides and some bad sides. That is completely absurd. They are incredibly deep and far reaching modifications of our environments and our minds, with the capabilities being unimaginable right now. They are a whole new species of environment modification, I don't think even technology is a good word anymore since it puts everything into one bucket and sort of brainwashes us from thinking about them separately.

 

We sort of have this narrative told to us that we are humans and it's in our nature to create "tools", but this is kind of a lie. We are not humans. A human is an abstraction we created, just like everything else. This reality and our bodies and minds is a machine, and the language we use to create narratives about ourselves limit how we see the world, and this can be used against us. What I'm saying is the separations we create of reality, like "living organism", "human", "plant", etc are artificial "cutouts" we make in our minds, and it enables people in power to cutout their own barriers and meanings and narratives of reality of which we are unaware. "Technology" is really just degrees of freedom in a physical system to accomplish some goal. That is why hitler, north korea, or whoever, can create their own artificial barriers and narratives. We think of people as some solid object of which no barrier can go through, an object which can't be ignored, but this is clearly not true. A human is an artificial cutout in the fabric of reality that one can happily cut in half, cut out or use for another purpose as one sees fit. It doesn't really exist. Reality is just a big fabric of colors and textures and one can impose whatever shapes one wants. This enables long term planning, excuse making and sequences of events far beyond anything that one sees on TV.

 

I don't mean to sound too conspiratorial, but I believe this to be a true thing. And these new technologies, if they even fulfill 50% of their full potential (because I guess the jury is still out on how far we can go with this), then we /could/ be severely fucked, to the point of losing control of our bodies, our minds and everything else.

[peace 7]

Hi.

[Guest]

Your point being?

[KovalainenFanBoy]

There hasn't been a time where people weren't afraid of where this new scary technology was going to lead us

[cichlisuite]

There hasn't been a time where people weren't afraid of where this new scary technology was going to lead us

which still does not mean that simply accepting the change (that was basically rammed down your throat without you having a single thing to say/do/know about it) is the right way. previous generations were afraid of computers and robots, the following generations embraced it, the next generations abused it so that irresponsible and power-driven agendas turned it into massive surveillance systems that are virtually autonomous.

[coax]

Your point being?

 

 

There hasn't been a time where people weren't afraid of where this new scary technology was going to lead us

 

 

 

There hasn't been a time where people weren't afraid of where this new scary technology was going to lead us

which still does not mean that simply accepting the change (that was basically rammed down your throat without you having a single thing to say/do/know about it) is the right way. previous generations were afraid of computers and robots, the following generations embraced it, the next generations abused it so that irresponsible and power-driven agendas turned it into massive surveillance systems that are virtually autonomous.

 

 

 

Right. This is part of the point. The other part is that technology isn't and shouldn't be a generic term for anything that we create. neuroscience is not the same as creating a hammer. neuroscience is the key to how we think, what we do, individually and as a society, and how we feel. Nanotechnology is the key to how our environment functions, how the body functions, with control potentially at very low scales. Biotechnology is an extension of that but using biological functions. And all these technologies feed off each other and converge. You can use AI to mine for and automate all of these things. You can use nanotechnology to create neuroscience and biotech, and of course computers enabled all of this. So they all feed into one an other. It's already very difficult to see where society is going and the effects technology has had on us, it's going to be even worse if all of this comes to fruition.

[Guest]

I understand your fear and I do not wish to partake in this thread anymore: choose fear, get fear.

[caze]

Science and technology are fundamentally amoral. Knowledge and tools can be used by moral actors in what ever ways they're capable of being used, but that's a separate argument. Even the abstract concept of strong AI is fundamentally amoral, even though any given AI may have a moral sense (whether that takes a form recognisable to humans or not).

 

I personally look forward to the day when the entire mass of the solar system has been converted into a dyson-sphere of computational matter running a vast network of meta consciousness.

[coax]

Science and technology are fundamentally amoral. Knowledge and tools can be used by moral actors in what ever ways they're capable of being used, but that's a separate argument. Even the abstract concept of strong AI is fundamentally amoral, even though any given AI may have a moral sense (whether that takes a form recognisable to humans or not).

 

I personally look forward to the day when the entire mass of the solar system has been converted into a dyson-sphere of computational matter running a vast network of meta consciousness.

 

Well I find the amoral argument pretty dubious. Anything and everything is amoral. A table or a wooden stick are amoral, it's their capabilities that count. I think one of the most dangerous technologies that are already out there is firearms, and to a lesser degree explosives (in terms of the whole planet). Firearms is one of those things that's too late to put back in the bottle, but has caused an unimaginable amount of physical damage, and given capabilities beyond anything ever seen before in human history. There's a clear qualitative difference between a world without firearms and one with. It doesn't matter one iota how moral or amoral a rifle is, over time it will be used to do everything and anything.

 

What really matters is what happens on the ground, in day to day life, especially in the lives of those who are without power and influence. What doesn't matter as much are those big abstract pictures that one typically sees in sci-fi movies or books. Society is really the sum of all persons subjective experiences, not the abstract high level story one tells oneself about that society.

It seems pretty clear to me that neuroscience, nanotechnology and the other upcoming things, are much worse than firearms. I dunno what's worse, having technologies only in the hands of governments and the powerful, or having them diffused and spread in easy to use packages to all people. Even though governments do a lot of damage, individuals can use it for bullying and other 'minor' events, but they all mean something for what society is. Dictators can use it for subjugation and surveillance etc in a smaller area that doesn't affect everyone.

 

Also I'm curious, what is the point of a solar system converted into a dyson-sphere and a meta consciousness? Will there be some "will" or emotion in that meta consciousness? Isn't the whole purpose of this life thing and society thing to make people more creative, have more positive experiences, and so forth? Where's the person and the emotion in that system? I am a sci-fi fan and love these kinds of things, but I'm dubious on the actual details.

[caze]

coax, on 20 May 2015 - 1:58 PM, said:

Well I find the amoral argument pretty dubious. Anything and everything is amoral. A table or a wooden stick are amoral, it's their capabilities that count. I think one of the most dangerous technologies that are already out there is firearms, and to a lesser degree explosives (in terms of the whole planet). Firearms is one of those things that's too late to put back in the bottle, but has caused an unimaginable amount of physical damage, and given capabilities beyond anything ever seen before in human history. There's a clear qualitative difference between a world without firearms and one with. It doesn't matter one iota how moral or amoral a rifle is, over time it will be used to do everything and anything.

 

 

The point of the argument isn't that there are no moral consequences of technology, just that the technology itself isn't the problem, it's the people and their choices and beliefs that need to be discussed.

It seems pretty clear to me that neuroscience, nanotechnology and the other upcoming things, are much worse than firearms.

 

 

This is just wrong, sure these technologies may have the potential to be abused in ways that are more damaging than firearms, but they also have the potential to be used in ways that are far more beneficial than the technologies that have come before them.

Also I'm curious, what is the point of a solar system converted into a dyson-sphere and a meta consciousness? Will there be some "will" or emotion in that meta consciousness? Isn't the whole purpose of this life thing and society thing to make people more creative, have more positive experiences, and so forth? Where's the person and the emotion in that system? I am a sci-fi fan and love these kinds of things, but I'm dubious on the actual details.

 

 

The 'people' would be running as virtual constructs within the computational matter, capable of all the experiences and emotions that we are currently capable of having, as well as a near infinitude of new ones.

[coax]

 

coax, on 20 May 2015 - 1:58 PM, said:

Well I find the amoral argument pretty dubious. Anything and everything is amoral. A table or a wooden stick are amoral, it's their capabilities that count. I think one of the most dangerous technologies that are already out there is firearms, and to a lesser degree explosives (in terms of the whole planet). Firearms is one of those things that's too late to put back in the bottle, but has caused an unimaginable amount of physical damage, and given capabilities beyond anything ever seen before in human history. There's a clear qualitative difference between a world without firearms and one with. It doesn't matter one iota how moral or amoral a rifle is, over time it will be used to do everything and anything.

 

 

The point of the argument isn't that there are no moral consequences of technology, just that the technology itself isn't the problem, it's the people and their choices and beliefs that need to be discussed.

It seems pretty clear to me that neuroscience, nanotechnology and the other upcoming things, are much worse than firearms.

 

 

This is just wrong, sure these technologies may have the potential to be abused in ways that are more damaging than firearms, but they also have the potential to be used in ways that are far more beneficial than the technologies that have come before them.

Also I'm curious, what is the point of a solar system converted into a dyson-sphere and a meta consciousness? Will there be some "will" or emotion in that meta consciousness? Isn't the whole purpose of this life thing and society thing to make people more creative, have more positive experiences, and so forth? Where's the person and the emotion in that system? I am a sci-fi fan and love these kinds of things, but I'm dubious on the actual details.

 

 

The 'people' would be running as virtual constructs within the computational matter, capable of all the experiences and emotions that we are currently capable of having, as well as a near infinitude of new ones.

 

Alternatively none of that happens and all we end up with is a tyranny or brainwashing of some kind that no one can oppose where the flashy consumer products were just to lure the customers into funneling money into a system of control for the benefit of others. I will concede though that being alive is inherently dangerous and you can cause a lot of pain simply with a pointy rock and that technology enables us to organize and control in certain ways for the betterment of all. Also health care is a big deal. I guess the big question is WILL people change? Will culture change for the better? There is maybe some evidence that it is, but that is mostly fueled by energy sources and many people not being poor and in desperation. What if we can't maintain this kind of lifestyle but we can still maintain a lot of the technology? I'm still not convinced it's a good idea to just march ahead with all this still.

 

Also about the virtual constructs. I think it's a big question whether that is possible, since we don't know what consciousness is. It could be a property of materials that we don't have access to. That it is a computational signalling process is far from proven and no one has come up with a single intuitive explanation. Of course someone could figure it out, simulate it in a computer and we're off into the races, but I think we still have to think about the motives and the path we are on.

[coax]

Btw the virtual construct stuff... Just look at the latest special of Black Mirror tv show to see one reason why that might be a bad idea.

[geosmina]

Hi.

 

I'm really interested in discussing on this thread. Tho I can't read that atm, but I will.

[caze]

Alternatively none of that happens and all we end up with is a tyranny or brainwashing of some kind that no one can oppose where the flashy consumer products were just to lure the customers into funneling money into a system of control for the benefit of others.

 

Sure, but we can't predict the future. Similarly I'm in no position to make any guaranteed predictions of a singularity style info-utopia, though I do think it's a real possibility. But you were making pronouncements that all this new technology was inherently bad, and it's just not.

I will concede though that being alive is inherently dangerous and you can cause a lot of pain simply with a pointy rock and that technology enables us to organize and control in certain ways for the betterment of all. Also health care is a big deal. I guess the big question is WILL people change? Will culture change for the better? There is maybe some evidence that it is, but that is mostly fueled by energy sources and many people not being poor and in desperation.

 

There's more than 'some evidence', human history up to this point is lots and lots of evidence. The past was an incredibly shitty place for the vast majority of all the humans that have ever lived, but as we've developed as a species it's gotten progressively better for more and more of us. There's no guarantee that trend will continue of course, there are many things within our control and without that could reverse that trend, or even completely wipe the whole show out. I'm not sure what your point about energy sources is, the universe has no shortage of energy sources.

What if we can't maintain this kind of lifestyle but we can still maintain a lot of the technology? I'm still not convinced it's a good idea to just march ahead with all this still.

 

How can we maintain the technology without maintaining the lifestyle? Especially as all technologies tend towards becoming cheaper and less resource hungry as they develop. The only thing that would prevent us from maintaining (and extending) the lifestyle would be if we couldn't maintain the technology, and I don't see much evidence that that's going happen any time soon. And whether you're convinced it's a good idea to march ahead is neither here nor there, neither you or anyone else is really in a position to do anything about it I'm afraid. Thankfully the thirst for knowledge is a pretty universal human attribute, if you managed to wipe it out in some corner of the world under some form of back-to-nature style green fascism, the rest of the world would just move on without you.

 

Also about the virtual constructs. I think it's a big question whether that is possible, since we don't know what consciousness is. It could be a property of materials that we don't have access to. That it is a computational signalling process is far from proven and no one has come up with a single intuitive explanation. Of course someone could figure it out, simulate it in a computer and we're off into the races, but I think we still have to think about the motives and the path we are on.

 

 

I don't think it's a big question at all, the fact that we exist and have consciousness (well I do at least, you lot could theoretically all be figments of my imagination), and the fact that there is both absolutely no evidence for a dualist model of consciousness, and also no theoretical framework wherein such a thing is even conceivable, is evidence enough that it's possible. As long as it exists as a physical manifestation of matter and energy then we will have access to it eventually (barring some unforeseen catastrophe of course), the only real unknown is how long it will take.

[chenGOD]

I could kill you with a table leg much more easily than with nanotechnology at the moment.

Also remember, the evil gubmint is out to get you, and I mean specifically you.

[coax]

 

 

Sure, but we can't predict the future. Similarly I'm in no position to make any guaranteed predictions of a singularity style info-utopia, though I do think it's a real possibility. But you were making pronouncements that all this new technology was inherently bad, and it's just not.

 

 

I still think capabilities can be inherently bad. I'm just not sure how we can think we would be ready for nanotechnology or neuroscience and not have it go incredibly haywire. What about all the innocent powerless victims not in the western world who can be abused by their leaders? Not only is all this stuff being created, but world leaders are actively encouraging a global manufacturing, production and adoption of it. It is a free for all arena of all the worst dimensions. It's not even a thoughtful experimental trial and error adoption but rather a flooding of global capital and research. What could possibly go wrong? All the things we learn in say, virtual reality, can be applied to that virtual constructs idea you had earlier, in terms of neuroscience. It can be applied in terms of biotechnology and changing or propagating genes or GMO's (even GM humans) to further some goal. Or just for evil purposes.

 

Most of the tech ceo's and leaders mostly talk about capitalism and consumer satisfaction in a very distant theoretical way. Any issues are sort of brought up as "yeah those are issues and we need global leaders and tech companies to think about them" and that's the end of the discussion really. We're not talking about making a hammer or even a computer, we're talking about fundamental capabilities that allow deep and vast control and long term planning of societies and individuals at the deepest levels of biology and material science. That's why I said I don't like the word technology. You're using it in the same generic way as we all do. They are fundamentally different.

 

 

There's more than 'some evidence', human history up to this point is lots and lots of evidence. The past was an incredibly shitty place for the vast majority of all the humans that have ever lived, but as we've developed as a species it's gotten progressively better for more and more of us. There's no guarantee that trend will continue of course, there are many things within our control and without that could reverse that trend, or even completely wipe the whole show out. I'm not sure what your point about energy sources is, the universe has no shortage of energy sources.

 

 

I've talked about this myself too so I don't disagree with that. I think the best solution for it would be to try to fulfill the basic needs of people, based on what we know about biology and psychology, but then not go too far with the other technology. Capitalism is based on another premise, namely that desires are infinite, which means we could create any and all technology, and we should do so. It's more exciting since our brains also want novel things all the time, but there is a balance to be had. My fundamental worry about this are the deep and vast capabilities that result from low scale control of the environment, it really is transformative in a NEW way.

 

As far as energy is concerned, I'm sure you've heard of peak oil, all the problems with renewable energy, and also the resource depletion of water, various minerals and other things. If our ability to empathize and think in more advanced ways about society is a result of these basic resources, then we obviously need those resources or some sufficient alternative in the future. There's every reason to think that over a longer term time horizon, all the culture will be forgotten, and the basic needs and instincts of people will set back in, if society collapses or retracts significantly.

 

How can we maintain the technology without maintaining the lifestyle? Especially as all technologies tend towards becoming cheaper and less resource hungry as they develop. The only thing that would prevent us from maintaining (and extending) the lifestyle would be if we couldn't maintain the technology, and I don't see much evidence that that's going happen any time soon. And whether you're convinced it's a good idea to march ahead is neither here nor there, neither you or anyone else is really in a position to do anything about it I'm afraid. Thankfully the thirst for knowledge is a pretty universal human attribute, if you managed to wipe it out in some corner of the world under some form of back-to-nature style green fascism, the rest of the world would just move on without you.

 

 

Because you could envision a world where due to resource depletion, only the rich get access to the resources, and then they use that to control the rest of the population. That is why I find the solar cells and renewable energy stuff somewhat creepy, since it can potentially allow the rich to separate themselves, and then all the remaining oil and other things will be used for isolated rich areas and nothing for the rest. As far as I have seen, every study talks about how the resources and consumption patterns will have to drastically reduce in the next 50 years, for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean, with the automation and AI and everything else, that the powerful can't sustain some of this for themselves. It all depends on the specific requirements of the capabilities and what exactly they are.

 

i think your point about "thirst for knowledge" is also not proven. What if it is rather a primal instinct to find novel experiences and to seek out new information no matter how mundane or irrelevant? To get knowledge, you have to focus and work hard, for years and decades, and that is the opposite of simply swarming to a new signal in the environment and then consuming it until its boring.

 

 

I don't think it's a big question at all, the fact that we exist and have consciousness (well I do at least, you lot could theoretically all be figments of my imagination), and the fact that there is both absolutely no evidence for a dualist model of consciousness, and also no theoretical framework wherein such a thing is even conceivable, is evidence enough that it's possible. As long as it exists as a physical manifestation of matter and energy then we will have access to it eventually (barring some unforeseen catastrophe of course), the only real unknown is how long it will take.

 

Well who said anything about dualism? Science doesn't even know what magnetism really is, or a photon, or whatever. Most of the technology we have created we created without understanding how it works. We just found the right conditions for an effect and then reproduced it. The problem with consciousness is that nobody has come up with a single intuitive signaling scheme for making something conscious vs not being conscious. Tononi has his theory, but it is a theory based on a set of conditions, not an explanation or understanding, like with magnetism. If it is some quantum or at least low scale effect then it will be as difficult as creating a quantum computer, because we would need to control the computational materials quantum state. I'm not claiming this is what's happening but I'm just saying it's very curious that there isn't a SINGLE computational theory!

[Bechuga]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability

[coax]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability

 

Well, nuclear bomb was decided was too dangerous to let be developed and used freely, like WMD's in general. Still we are developing WMD-like capabilities right now. It's more like scenario predictions which necessarily has to make assumptions about potential futures. What's the alternative? Just say "fuck it" and not talk about it? Maybe it's too late already, caze said earlier that we can't do anything about it, and I agree we can't personally, but we are as much responsible as anyone else for having a 'public debate'

[caze]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability

 

Well, nuclear bomb was decided was too dangerous to let be developed and used freely, like WMD's in general. Still we are developing WMD-like capabilities right now. It's more like scenario predictions which necessarily has to make assumptions about potential futures. What's the alternative? Just say "fuck it" and not talk about it? Maybe it's too late already, caze said earlier that we can't do anything about it, and I agree we can't personally, but we are as much responsible as anyone else for having a 'public debate'

 

 

but by your logic the fact that we have developed nuclear weapons at all should mean the entire world has already been turned into a desolate nuclear wasteland, I'm pretty sure that never happened. we still use the fruits of the knowledge that allowed for the building of those bombs for the betterment of mankind, what makes you think the same won't be true of advances in nanotechnology?

[cwmbrancity]

[coax]

 

 

 

but by your logic the fact that we have developed nuclear weapons at all should mean the entire world has already been turned into a desolate nuclear wasteland, I'm pretty sure that never happened. we still use the fruits of the knowledge that allowed for the building of those bombs for the betterment of mankind, what makes you think the same won't be true of advances in nanotechnology?

 

 

My logic isn't that it is inevitable, but rather that there are great unknowns and that we can intelligently think about the risks and power of certain capabilities. Also about the nuclear weapons, look at this site http://nuclearrisk.org/

There has actually been consensus among some that we have been plain lucky with the nuclear weapons thing. Imagine if we now have 4 or 5 nuclear weapon-type technologies, rather than just one. I think it's my fault that the conversation didn't go as I hoped. I used too strong language and tone. My intention is to explore possibilities and to calculate various risks. I still think there is something there about the power of these technologies but I'm not sure what more I can say at this point

[Bechuga]

[luke viia]

A thread after my own heart. The book "techno-fix" is a great resource for anyone concerned about the clash of technology, environment, policy and science.

[eugene]

there have been a few instances where a nuclear war could have been started that would destroy the earth and we sort of passed this test and it seems like things are defusing even further as everything is becoming more globalized and western values are taking over the world, and i believe that those values and beliefs prevented the people from pushing the nuke buttons in both ussr and us. while i do subscribe to the idea that technologies and other artifacts do have some sort of agency and power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor%E2%80%93network_theory) it still seems that humans are much more in control of things to a large extent, it seems a bit far fetched to think that your doomsday scenario will be overlooked, that AI+nanotechnology+advanced neuroscience will get out of control and fuck us all.

[WeAreOceans]

There hasn't been a time where people weren't afraid of where this new scary technology was going to lead us

 

I think futurism was all about embracing the future